You would think a group as devoted to protecting the environment as Green Peace is would know better than to pull off the stunt they did this week in Peru. While the international climate conference was in progress in Lima, Green Peace activists decided to make a splash protest demonstration. But their choice of how to go about doing this was both poorly advised and very curiously against their own philosophy. They chose to trespass on a world heritage site and damaged the amazing Nazca lines by putting a protest message out there.
The Nazca lines are made by removing a very thin layer of what is called 'desert varnish,' a thin crust over a lighter-colored substrate. For some unknown reason, the people living in the area 1500 years ago very carefully removed this varnish to make various drawings. This varnish is so thin that walking on it will damage it. And, that is just what Green Peace did. They trespassed on the site and walked out there to place signs on the surface that were visible from the air. I wonder if future pictures of the site will point out the tracks left behind by these people.
While I laud the thought of making a statement, I condemn the way they did it. For the record, Green Peace itself has been extremely apologetic about this action taken by some of its members and apparently had no foreknowledge of it. Still, the damage is done and not to just the Nazca lines. Now, any time we talk about how climate change is damaging the environment we will have to defend climate science against this criminal act.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Are Republican's Coming Around on Climate Change?
Can the Republicans really be changing their ways? Even just a little?
Last month, Senator John Thune, R-SD, stated,
But, it doesn't stop there. Congress Chris, R-NY announced he intends to introduce a resolution acknowledging the role human emissions play in climate change.
Let's keep an eye on this and see what happens.
Last month, Senator John Thune, R-SD, stated,
“Well, look, climate change is occurring, it’s always occurring, Chris,” he said on Fox News Sunday, addressing the host, Chris Wallace. “There are a number of factors that contribute to that, including human activity. The question is, what are we going to do about it and at what cost?”Can we hear that again? - "There are a number of factors that contribute to that (climate change), including human activity." (Emphasis added.) I wonder if he got a phone call from the Heartland Institute the next day threatening to cut off their donations.
But, it doesn't stop there. Congress Chris, R-NY announced he intends to introduce a resolution acknowledging the role human emissions play in climate change.
“My district has been hit with three 500-year floods in the last several years, so either you believe that we had a one in over 100 million probability that occurred, or you believe as I do that there’s a new normal, and we have changing weather patterns, and we have climate change. This is the science,” Gibson reportedly told his audience."Wow! So refreshing. It is certainly a start and it's easy to think this might be the start of something good. But, let's not forget, these are the same people that decided to ignore their own scientists. Other historical evidence is not good, either.
Let's keep an eye on this and see what happens.
California Drought
As we (hopefully!) know, California has been suffering through a record-breaking drought these last few years. Recent studies have indicated that this has been the worst California drought in as much as 1200 years. Now, there is some relief coming. California has been hit with some rain in recent weeks and is now getting more. In fact, there is an atmospheric river in place that promises to bring quite a bit of precipitation. Rain would be great, snow would be even better.
If you are not familiar with the term, an atmospheric river (AR) is a narrow band of atmospheric moisture and they are responsible for the majority of moisture movement outside of the tropics. They form in the lower atmosphere and can move with wind currents for thousands of miles, lasting many days. When they strike obstacles, such as mountain ranges, the uplift causes the moisture to condense and precipitate out. That is why they cause so much precipitation in California - they travel in from the Pacific and strike the Sierra Nevada mountains. Take a look at this graphic showing the amount of precipitable water in the atmosphere and you can clearly see the atmospheric river heading into California.
Note how the AR passes over Hawaii, hence the nickname "Pineapple Express." Also, notice how much more moisture there is in the tropics. You can also see how the AR ends on the West Coast and doesn't move inland very much. West of the mountains will get rain, but the areas east of the mountains will remain dry. While some rain is good, ARs are capable of bringing catastrophic amounts. An AR in 1861-2 brought 43 straight days of rain to the West Coast and turned the interior valleys into lakes, causing massive amounts of damage and killing thousands.
Is this the end of the drought? We can hope so, but we'll have to wait and see to be sure. Hopefully, we won't see anything like the AR of 1861.
So, now the question is, is the drought a naturally-occurring event or because of climate change? The answer, as is typically the case, a mixture of both. California has had droughts in the past and will continue to have them in the future. This drought may have been a naturally occurring event. There are reports going both ways. But, the one thing that is consistent is that global warming certainly made this drought much worse than ones in the past. What studies have shown is that there have been droughts in the past that had even less rain than this current one, but they were all much cooler. This current drought has been a 'hot drought' and California has experienced record high temperatures (remember that the next time someone tells you East Coast temperatures mean the planet is cooling) at the same time the rain failed.
In short, the drought was caused by what has become known as the 'ridiculously resilient ridge.' This ridge caused the wind currents to go north, parallel to the West Coast, preventing moisture from reaching the coastal regions. The currents went up into Alaska and Canada before turning south and plunging into Mid-America, leading to our cooler than average winters in the east these last couple of years. There is debate if this ridge was natural or caused by climate change. But, drought was exacerbated by the high temperatures and the higher temperatures were most certainly caused by global warming.
What that means is that we can expect the naturally occurring drought cycle going forward, but they will look more and more like this last one. Even if this AR brings relief, California needs to make plans because this is going to happen again.
If you are not familiar with the term, an atmospheric river (AR) is a narrow band of atmospheric moisture and they are responsible for the majority of moisture movement outside of the tropics. They form in the lower atmosphere and can move with wind currents for thousands of miles, lasting many days. When they strike obstacles, such as mountain ranges, the uplift causes the moisture to condense and precipitate out. That is why they cause so much precipitation in California - they travel in from the Pacific and strike the Sierra Nevada mountains. Take a look at this graphic showing the amount of precipitable water in the atmosphere and you can clearly see the atmospheric river heading into California.
 |
| Source: CCI Reanalyzer |
Note how the AR passes over Hawaii, hence the nickname "Pineapple Express." Also, notice how much more moisture there is in the tropics. You can also see how the AR ends on the West Coast and doesn't move inland very much. West of the mountains will get rain, but the areas east of the mountains will remain dry. While some rain is good, ARs are capable of bringing catastrophic amounts. An AR in 1861-2 brought 43 straight days of rain to the West Coast and turned the interior valleys into lakes, causing massive amounts of damage and killing thousands.
Is this the end of the drought? We can hope so, but we'll have to wait and see to be sure. Hopefully, we won't see anything like the AR of 1861.
So, now the question is, is the drought a naturally-occurring event or because of climate change? The answer, as is typically the case, a mixture of both. California has had droughts in the past and will continue to have them in the future. This drought may have been a naturally occurring event. There are reports going both ways. But, the one thing that is consistent is that global warming certainly made this drought much worse than ones in the past. What studies have shown is that there have been droughts in the past that had even less rain than this current one, but they were all much cooler. This current drought has been a 'hot drought' and California has experienced record high temperatures (remember that the next time someone tells you East Coast temperatures mean the planet is cooling) at the same time the rain failed.
In short, the drought was caused by what has become known as the 'ridiculously resilient ridge.' This ridge caused the wind currents to go north, parallel to the West Coast, preventing moisture from reaching the coastal regions. The currents went up into Alaska and Canada before turning south and plunging into Mid-America, leading to our cooler than average winters in the east these last couple of years. There is debate if this ridge was natural or caused by climate change. But, drought was exacerbated by the high temperatures and the higher temperatures were most certainly caused by global warming.
What that means is that we can expect the naturally occurring drought cycle going forward, but they will look more and more like this last one. Even if this AR brings relief, California needs to make plans because this is going to happen again.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Australia and Climate Change - Updated
When Julia Gillard was campaigning for Prime Minister of Australia in 2010, she stated no carbon tax would be imposed under a government she led, but did exactly that with the Clean Energy Bill of 2011. This led to her being met with placards that read 'Ju-liar' and, through a series of Parliament events, resigned her position as Prime Minister in June, 2013. Tony Abbott hammered her on the broken promise. His conservative coalition won the September 2013 election and Abbott introduced a bill on his first day as Prime Minister to repeal the carbon tax. The bill passed in July 2014, much to the fanfare of climate change deniers and fossil fuel billionaires everywhere.
Happily ever after? Not hardly.
While campaigning, Abbott vowed he would not cut popular programs. Now that he is in charge, he has cut funding for schools and hospitals by A$80 billion over the next decade. As can be expected from someone that is demonstrating his contempt for science, the science budget is being hit with cuts of A$420 million. The national science budget amount to just .6% of the national GDP. His reasoning for cutting their budgets? To cut the budget deficit.
But, wait a minute, one of the reasons Australia has a budget deficit is because Abbott cut the carbon tax and then replaced it with a tax-payer funded program to pay polluters to cut back on carbon emissions. Instead of making the polluters pay to clean-up their own mess, Abbott decided the taxpayers had to pay for it. Instead of having an income stream, he now has an expense. Who benefits and you doesn't? Well, the polluters benefit because they are now being paid by the government to pollute. The more they pollute, the more they get to clean it up. The taxpayers lost because their tax dollars are being used to pay Abbott's corporate sponsors and they have to live in the pollution.
Now, the government is reeling and Abbott is getting back what he dished out - his integrity is being questioned and he is being accused of lying about his campaign promises. Ms. Gillard probably thinks it all sounds familiar. The popularity of Abbott's coalition government has plummeted and he is being met with placards that read, "Abbott-Liar." On November 29, Abbott's coalition lost in the state election in Victoria.
Abbott is finding himself isolated in the international community, as well. As the U.S. and China negotiate limits to greenhouse gas emissions, Abbott is busy paying polluters to clean-up their own mess. Abbott tried, and failed, to keep climate change off the G-20 agenda. The man that said the "climate change argument is absolute crap," is now finding himself in the minority on the issue.
It just keeps getting worse for them. The Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop has been getting hammered from all sides on the issue. First, being embarrassed at the Australia-hosted G-20 conference on the subject, and now at the climate change conference in Lima, Peru.
So, Australians decided to elect a guy that is beholden to the fossil fuel industry, and now they aren't happy when they find out he will take care of industry instead of the citizens. I feel like saying this is a case of voter beware, except for the fact that we pretty much did the same thing in this country when we gave the Republicans full control of Congress last month. That is likely to be something we will regret, so I can't wag a finger at Australia.
UPDATE (12/10/2014): Did Australia cave in to international pressure? After saying all along that Australia would not contribute to the UN's global green fund, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has now announced Australia will pledge A$200 million to the fund to help third-world countries deal with climate change. Is this the start of a change in policy? We'll have to wait and see.
Happily ever after? Not hardly.
While campaigning, Abbott vowed he would not cut popular programs. Now that he is in charge, he has cut funding for schools and hospitals by A$80 billion over the next decade. As can be expected from someone that is demonstrating his contempt for science, the science budget is being hit with cuts of A$420 million. The national science budget amount to just .6% of the national GDP. His reasoning for cutting their budgets? To cut the budget deficit.
But, wait a minute, one of the reasons Australia has a budget deficit is because Abbott cut the carbon tax and then replaced it with a tax-payer funded program to pay polluters to cut back on carbon emissions. Instead of making the polluters pay to clean-up their own mess, Abbott decided the taxpayers had to pay for it. Instead of having an income stream, he now has an expense. Who benefits and you doesn't? Well, the polluters benefit because they are now being paid by the government to pollute. The more they pollute, the more they get to clean it up. The taxpayers lost because their tax dollars are being used to pay Abbott's corporate sponsors and they have to live in the pollution.
Now, the government is reeling and Abbott is getting back what he dished out - his integrity is being questioned and he is being accused of lying about his campaign promises. Ms. Gillard probably thinks it all sounds familiar. The popularity of Abbott's coalition government has plummeted and he is being met with placards that read, "Abbott-Liar." On November 29, Abbott's coalition lost in the state election in Victoria.
Abbott is finding himself isolated in the international community, as well. As the U.S. and China negotiate limits to greenhouse gas emissions, Abbott is busy paying polluters to clean-up their own mess. Abbott tried, and failed, to keep climate change off the G-20 agenda. The man that said the "climate change argument is absolute crap," is now finding himself in the minority on the issue.
It just keeps getting worse for them. The Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop has been getting hammered from all sides on the issue. First, being embarrassed at the Australia-hosted G-20 conference on the subject, and now at the climate change conference in Lima, Peru.
So, Australians decided to elect a guy that is beholden to the fossil fuel industry, and now they aren't happy when they find out he will take care of industry instead of the citizens. I feel like saying this is a case of voter beware, except for the fact that we pretty much did the same thing in this country when we gave the Republicans full control of Congress last month. That is likely to be something we will regret, so I can't wag a finger at Australia.
UPDATE (12/10/2014): Did Australia cave in to international pressure? After saying all along that Australia would not contribute to the UN's global green fund, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has now announced Australia will pledge A$200 million to the fund to help third-world countries deal with climate change. Is this the start of a change in policy? We'll have to wait and see.
Louisiana Candidate for Congress Self Destructs
I am frequently accused of being a liberal-progressive because I stand by the science of climate change. Not only is that wildly false, it is a prime example of how polarized the debate has become. People are making assumptions on my political views with nothing to support their conclusion other than their desire for it to be true. Much like their conclusions on climate science to begin with. Who needs facts when you have a preconceived conclusion? I don't really care to discuss my political beliefs, but I will state that I am a very committed independent and I always have been. I have never belonged to any political party and I probably never will. I believe very strongly both the Democrats and the Republicans are dominated by extremists. I view the Democrats to be the party that has rejected logic while the Republicans have rejected science. Just when I think I have heard some representative from one party say something that is so stupid it can't be beat, someone from the other party will open their mouth and prove me wrong. Does anyone really wonder why we have so little trust in our elected officials?
So, I have been asked to review a statement made by Lenar Whitney, a Republican candidate for Congress in the Louisiana 6th Congressional District this past year. This statement has already been panned pretty thoroughly with PolitiFact.com rating her statement as 'Pants on Fire', but I will add my two cents worth - and I am overpaying for this whopper. You can see her statement here. The good news is she finished a distant fifth in the election last month with only 7.41% of the vote (19, 151 votes). The bad news is that means there were 19,150 voters who supported this nut case (after allowing her to vote for herself).
Let's review her statements.
She didn't waste any time getting out of the starting gate when she opened her statement that she was attacked by 'liberals and lame-stream media' for saying global warming was a hoax. Again, we see the tendency to assume what someone's political stand is based on their understanding of science and to denigrate them for that understanding. How does she know everyone that objected to her statement is a liberal or in the 'lame-stream media'? She doesn't, but it looks good to her supporters to attack anyone that disagrees with her. This is a very common tactic in the denier arsenal. When you can't refute the science, attack the people that support it.
Then, she uses a quote by George Orwell to make it sound as if she is being noble and standing up to organized deceit. Sorry, Ms. Whitney, the reason people objected to your statement is because it was unsupported by any form of science.
After that, she goes on a diatribe about how global warming is 'perhaps the greatest deception in the history of mankind.' Wow! Let's face it, there have been some pretty big deceptions over the years. The deception of the climate change deniers does not equate to that level, no matter how much deception the fossil fuel industry is selling. Oh, wait. That wasn't what she meant. But, it should have been.
Her next whopper occurs when she states any 10-year old can prove man made global warming is not real by simply using a thermometer. If it is that simple, why doesn't she do it? She is putting her lack of scientific understanding on display here. First, that 10-year old would have to go all over the planet, including the polar regions, the open oceans and all of the wilderness areas to collect that data. Then, that 10-year old would have to do it for decades on end. It isn't the temperature that is the problem, per se. It is the change in the temperature that we are concerned with.
On that point, she claims the planet has gotten colder each year since the release of the movie An Inconvenient Truth (have you ever noticed the way these people froth at the mouth with the mention of Al Gore or this movie while being unable to refute the science?). Let's look at the record and compare it to her claims. If we look only at the surface temperature we see that the 1980s where the hottest decade ever measured. Every year of the 1990s was hotter than the 1980s average, making the 1990s the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 2000s was hotter than the average of the 1990s, making the 2000s the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 2010s has been hotter than the average of the 2000s, making the 2010s the hottest decade ever recorded. So far. By the way, 2014 is already the hottest single year ever measured. So much for the planet getting colder every year for the last 10 years.
But, that is only the surface temperature. What about if we include the ocean temperature? Take a look here. Yikes. The surface temperature rise has slowed down (the so-called 'pause') but not stopped. Include the ocean temperature and we can see global warming is continuing with a vengeance.
Her next bit of proof to support her claim? She stated that in the Obama administration 'down is up, 2 plus 2 equals five and ignorance is strength.' Where is the science and data here? There is none. Once again, when you have no science to support your claims, attack.
More inaccuracies. 'Last summer, Antarctica reached the coldest temperature in recorded history.' No, that is not a true statement. One single point had the coldest temperature ever recorded, but that does not reflect the temperature for the entire continent. In fact, the significance of the measurement is that it was done using satellites in regions where we have previously been unable to collect data. This is not evidence to support either side of the debate and it shows a lack of understanding on her part to try and make it so.
"There is record sheet ice and 60% rise in ice in the Arctic sea." By sheet ice, I am assuming she means the land ice, specifically the Greenland Ice Sheet. Sorry, Ms. Whitney, the only record it has set is for the record ice melt. And, as for that '60% rise' in sea ice, this is a wonderful example of cherry picking that the deniers keep insisting on. It is so bad that it has to be concluded they are doing it for the purpose of deception. The sea ice extent in 2012 shrank to an alarmingly low level. It was expected to rebound simply because the level was so low, and it did. The 2013, level was about 60% higher than the level in 2012, but it was also more than 40% lower than the level in 1980. They continue to forget to mention that last little bit. Oh, by the way, it was lower this past fall.
Moving on. "Polar bears have been forced out of their habitat because of over population." Sorry, polar bear numbers are down.
She claims experts agree that storms have decreased, contrary to claims made by climate scientists. Once again, she's wrong.
Then, she call climate science a 'scam' and accuses the 'lap dog media' of sweeping it under the rug. Her proof? She pulls out the East Anglia email hack, popularly known as ClimateGate as her proof. She ignores the fact that the scientists were cleared of all claims made by deniers by several independent panels and it was shown the scientists were not only quoted out of context, but some of the emails were actually rewritten by the hackers to change their intent. She would have known that if she had bothered doing her homework. Read about it here. Or, here. Or, any number of other sources. The evidence is clear, the claims by the deniers are not valid and not based on the facts. Why didn't she know that? If she wants to be a member of Congress, you would have thought she would do a better job of learning the facts.
Her next diatribe is to go on a great praise of the virtues of burning fossil fuels and what a wonderful thing it has been for America. The false argument she makes here is the unstated claim that the American dream can only be achieved by burning fossil fuels and there is no other way to have the modern amenities we enjoy. Obviously, this is entirely false and it makes me believe she received political donations from organizations associated with the fossil fuel industry.
She spends the rest of the video making equally senseless claims about the political situation oveseas and here at home - all very inflammatory and all without any supporting evidence.
All in all, Ms.Whitney helped prove my point that political parties are dominated by extremists and the Republican party is the party that rejects science. Her statement is so blatantly stupid that it makes me sad to think there were over 19,000 people in her district that thought she should go to Congress. Imagine someone in Congress doing such a poor job on the background checks before voting on a bill. Well, actually, you don't have to imagine that because that is the sad truth of what is going on right now. How about the "I'm not a scientist, but...." line some of them have been using? What they are saying is, "I'm not a scientists, but that won't stop me from proving what a jackass I am."
So, a Republican has shown just how incredibly stupid she is. Would any Democrat like to match the bar?
So, I have been asked to review a statement made by Lenar Whitney, a Republican candidate for Congress in the Louisiana 6th Congressional District this past year. This statement has already been panned pretty thoroughly with PolitiFact.com rating her statement as 'Pants on Fire', but I will add my two cents worth - and I am overpaying for this whopper. You can see her statement here. The good news is she finished a distant fifth in the election last month with only 7.41% of the vote (19, 151 votes). The bad news is that means there were 19,150 voters who supported this nut case (after allowing her to vote for herself).
Let's review her statements.
She didn't waste any time getting out of the starting gate when she opened her statement that she was attacked by 'liberals and lame-stream media' for saying global warming was a hoax. Again, we see the tendency to assume what someone's political stand is based on their understanding of science and to denigrate them for that understanding. How does she know everyone that objected to her statement is a liberal or in the 'lame-stream media'? She doesn't, but it looks good to her supporters to attack anyone that disagrees with her. This is a very common tactic in the denier arsenal. When you can't refute the science, attack the people that support it.
Then, she uses a quote by George Orwell to make it sound as if she is being noble and standing up to organized deceit. Sorry, Ms. Whitney, the reason people objected to your statement is because it was unsupported by any form of science.
After that, she goes on a diatribe about how global warming is 'perhaps the greatest deception in the history of mankind.' Wow! Let's face it, there have been some pretty big deceptions over the years. The deception of the climate change deniers does not equate to that level, no matter how much deception the fossil fuel industry is selling. Oh, wait. That wasn't what she meant. But, it should have been.
Her next whopper occurs when she states any 10-year old can prove man made global warming is not real by simply using a thermometer. If it is that simple, why doesn't she do it? She is putting her lack of scientific understanding on display here. First, that 10-year old would have to go all over the planet, including the polar regions, the open oceans and all of the wilderness areas to collect that data. Then, that 10-year old would have to do it for decades on end. It isn't the temperature that is the problem, per se. It is the change in the temperature that we are concerned with.
On that point, she claims the planet has gotten colder each year since the release of the movie An Inconvenient Truth (have you ever noticed the way these people froth at the mouth with the mention of Al Gore or this movie while being unable to refute the science?). Let's look at the record and compare it to her claims. If we look only at the surface temperature we see that the 1980s where the hottest decade ever measured. Every year of the 1990s was hotter than the 1980s average, making the 1990s the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 2000s was hotter than the average of the 1990s, making the 2000s the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 2010s has been hotter than the average of the 2000s, making the 2010s the hottest decade ever recorded. So far. By the way, 2014 is already the hottest single year ever measured. So much for the planet getting colder every year for the last 10 years.
But, that is only the surface temperature. What about if we include the ocean temperature? Take a look here. Yikes. The surface temperature rise has slowed down (the so-called 'pause') but not stopped. Include the ocean temperature and we can see global warming is continuing with a vengeance.
Her next bit of proof to support her claim? She stated that in the Obama administration 'down is up, 2 plus 2 equals five and ignorance is strength.' Where is the science and data here? There is none. Once again, when you have no science to support your claims, attack.
More inaccuracies. 'Last summer, Antarctica reached the coldest temperature in recorded history.' No, that is not a true statement. One single point had the coldest temperature ever recorded, but that does not reflect the temperature for the entire continent. In fact, the significance of the measurement is that it was done using satellites in regions where we have previously been unable to collect data. This is not evidence to support either side of the debate and it shows a lack of understanding on her part to try and make it so.
"There is record sheet ice and 60% rise in ice in the Arctic sea." By sheet ice, I am assuming she means the land ice, specifically the Greenland Ice Sheet. Sorry, Ms. Whitney, the only record it has set is for the record ice melt. And, as for that '60% rise' in sea ice, this is a wonderful example of cherry picking that the deniers keep insisting on. It is so bad that it has to be concluded they are doing it for the purpose of deception. The sea ice extent in 2012 shrank to an alarmingly low level. It was expected to rebound simply because the level was so low, and it did. The 2013, level was about 60% higher than the level in 2012, but it was also more than 40% lower than the level in 1980. They continue to forget to mention that last little bit. Oh, by the way, it was lower this past fall.
Moving on. "Polar bears have been forced out of their habitat because of over population." Sorry, polar bear numbers are down.
She claims experts agree that storms have decreased, contrary to claims made by climate scientists. Once again, she's wrong.
Then, she call climate science a 'scam' and accuses the 'lap dog media' of sweeping it under the rug. Her proof? She pulls out the East Anglia email hack, popularly known as ClimateGate as her proof. She ignores the fact that the scientists were cleared of all claims made by deniers by several independent panels and it was shown the scientists were not only quoted out of context, but some of the emails were actually rewritten by the hackers to change their intent. She would have known that if she had bothered doing her homework. Read about it here. Or, here. Or, any number of other sources. The evidence is clear, the claims by the deniers are not valid and not based on the facts. Why didn't she know that? If she wants to be a member of Congress, you would have thought she would do a better job of learning the facts.
Her next diatribe is to go on a great praise of the virtues of burning fossil fuels and what a wonderful thing it has been for America. The false argument she makes here is the unstated claim that the American dream can only be achieved by burning fossil fuels and there is no other way to have the modern amenities we enjoy. Obviously, this is entirely false and it makes me believe she received political donations from organizations associated with the fossil fuel industry.
She spends the rest of the video making equally senseless claims about the political situation oveseas and here at home - all very inflammatory and all without any supporting evidence.
All in all, Ms.Whitney helped prove my point that political parties are dominated by extremists and the Republican party is the party that rejects science. Her statement is so blatantly stupid that it makes me sad to think there were over 19,000 people in her district that thought she should go to Congress. Imagine someone in Congress doing such a poor job on the background checks before voting on a bill. Well, actually, you don't have to imagine that because that is the sad truth of what is going on right now. How about the "I'm not a scientist, but...." line some of them have been using? What they are saying is, "I'm not a scientists, but that won't stop me from proving what a jackass I am."
So, a Republican has shown just how incredibly stupid she is. Would any Democrat like to match the bar?
Monday, December 8, 2014
Climate Change Impacts New England Economy
Here in Texas, hunting and fishing is big business, as is wildlife watching. Texas is one of the premier locations in the entire country for these outdoor activities. People come here to see everything from butterflies to birds to mountain lions and javelinas. Taxes on hunting and fishing gear pay for many of the natural programs we have, such as the state parks, recreational areas and wildlife areas. Tourism dollars are huge. I live in the heart of deer hunting country and the economic impact of the hunters coming out here is enormous. Many of the businesses would have a hard time surviving without the money hunters spend. And, since Texas has very little public land, hunting is done primarily on private land by purchasing hunting leases from land owners. This income for the land owners can make the difference between paying their taxes and not. According to a study by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
Obviously, outdoor activities is huge business and everyone in the state benefits from them.
Now, the outdoor activities in New Hampshire and Vermont do not approach the levels in Texas, but neither does the population. It is fair to say the people of those states enjoy the benefits of outdoorsmen much the way the people of Texas do. Possibly even more, on a per capita basis.
So, what's the point?
The point is the moose population in New England is crashing. The size of the population is down as much as 40% over the last three years. As a consequence, Vermont is issuing 335 moose hunting permits when it issued 1200 just a few years ago. New Hampshire is issuing 125 permits, down from 675. Along with the decrease in revenue from the sale of those permits comes the corresponding decrease in business the hunters bring along. These figures do not include the economic damage done when wildlife viewers stop frequenting the area. In other words, the people of Vermont and New Hampshire are losing the economic benefit of having moose in their states.
What caused the decline? It is related to a phenomenon known as the 'ghost moose.' A moose has a protective layer of brown hair that gives it the familiar appearance. But, the stubs of this hair is white. The moose in the area have been rubbing the hair off, leaving only the white stubs visible and turning the normally brown moose into the white 'ghost moose.'
The story behind why they do this is pretty horrific to imagine - the winter tick. Thousands of them. Sometimes as many as 50,000 ticks on a single moose. They are rubbing their hair off in an attempt to remove the tick infestations. The infestations can get so bad the moose is literally drained to death by the blood suckers, which can each grow the size of a grape. Imagine a moose covered with 50,000 grape-sized ticks.
Winter ticks are not new. They are not even new to the moose's range. What is new is the warmer winters that are allowing the ticks to multiply in such devastating numbers. The winters in New Hampshire are four degrees warmer than in the 1970s. The falls last longer and the spring comes earlier and there is less snow on the ground. The warm weather is conducive to the ticks breeding. Also, the lack of snow makes it easier for them to survive because birds will eat them when they spot them on the snow. Warmer weather and less snow means more ticks survive to breed and make the population ever larger next year. That will allow them to suck even more moose to death next year.
So, as the moose population declines (and New England is not the only place this is happening) we can expect the deniers to say, "So what? The world will be fine without a few moose." I think those people in New England that benefit from having the moose in their states will disagree. When someone tells them of how climate change is good for them, maybe they'll point out how much income they and their states have lost because of it. And, that is just the from the decline of the moose.
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry will continue to tell you it isn't a problem.
In 2006, 6.0 million residents and non-residents participated in some form of fish and wildlife-related recreation in Texas. These anglers, hunters and wildlife viewers spent $8.91 billion in retail sales ($8.24 billion by residents and $671 million by nonresidents), creating $4.67 billion in salaries and wages, and supporting 139,404 jobs. The total economic effect (multiplier effect) from fish and wildlife-related recreation was estimated at $15.8 billion.The state received nearly $890 million in tax revenue that year. That comes out to about $34 for every single person in the state. That figure does not include the tax revenue the state received from sales on ordinary items hunters purchase while on the road.
Obviously, outdoor activities is huge business and everyone in the state benefits from them.
Now, the outdoor activities in New Hampshire and Vermont do not approach the levels in Texas, but neither does the population. It is fair to say the people of those states enjoy the benefits of outdoorsmen much the way the people of Texas do. Possibly even more, on a per capita basis.
So, what's the point?
The point is the moose population in New England is crashing. The size of the population is down as much as 40% over the last three years. As a consequence, Vermont is issuing 335 moose hunting permits when it issued 1200 just a few years ago. New Hampshire is issuing 125 permits, down from 675. Along with the decrease in revenue from the sale of those permits comes the corresponding decrease in business the hunters bring along. These figures do not include the economic damage done when wildlife viewers stop frequenting the area. In other words, the people of Vermont and New Hampshire are losing the economic benefit of having moose in their states.
What caused the decline? It is related to a phenomenon known as the 'ghost moose.' A moose has a protective layer of brown hair that gives it the familiar appearance. But, the stubs of this hair is white. The moose in the area have been rubbing the hair off, leaving only the white stubs visible and turning the normally brown moose into the white 'ghost moose.'
 |
| Source: Don Meredith: Death in the Woods |
The story behind why they do this is pretty horrific to imagine - the winter tick. Thousands of them. Sometimes as many as 50,000 ticks on a single moose. They are rubbing their hair off in an attempt to remove the tick infestations. The infestations can get so bad the moose is literally drained to death by the blood suckers, which can each grow the size of a grape. Imagine a moose covered with 50,000 grape-sized ticks.
Winter ticks are not new. They are not even new to the moose's range. What is new is the warmer winters that are allowing the ticks to multiply in such devastating numbers. The winters in New Hampshire are four degrees warmer than in the 1970s. The falls last longer and the spring comes earlier and there is less snow on the ground. The warm weather is conducive to the ticks breeding. Also, the lack of snow makes it easier for them to survive because birds will eat them when they spot them on the snow. Warmer weather and less snow means more ticks survive to breed and make the population ever larger next year. That will allow them to suck even more moose to death next year.
So, as the moose population declines (and New England is not the only place this is happening) we can expect the deniers to say, "So what? The world will be fine without a few moose." I think those people in New England that benefit from having the moose in their states will disagree. When someone tells them of how climate change is good for them, maybe they'll point out how much income they and their states have lost because of it. And, that is just the from the decline of the moose.
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry will continue to tell you it isn't a problem.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Way Past the Deadline Claims
Dear Mr. Keeting:
I accept your challenge.
Under the rules of the Scientific Method, if the empirical evidence doesn't match hypothetical projections, the hypothesis can be deemed disconfirmed.
RESPONSE: This is a fatal misunderstanding of the scientific method. Bad start. Review this submission here for one example of someone that has already made this claim. Essentially, climate change is not a single theory. It is a umbrella term that covers at least hundreds, maybe thousands, of different theories coming together. Each of these theories is independently tested and verified. If you wish to prove AGW is not valid this way, you would have to independently invalidate each of those theories.
1) CAGW's global temp projections/Water Vapor
CAGW "best guess" Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is 3.0C~4.5C by 2100. This projection was calculated by CO2's forcing effect 5.35 x ln(560ppm/280ppm)= 3.7 watts, which, using the Stefan-Boltzman constant, will generate NET global warming of 1.2C by 2100.
The CAGW hypothesis then projects that 1.2C of GROSS CO2 induced warming will generate a "runaway feedback loop" involving ever increasing atmospheric water vapor concentrations, which will multiply this GROSS 1.2C of GROSS potential CO2 warming by a factor of 3 to 4 TIMES, which yields CAGW's NET best guess estimate of 3.0C~4.5C by 2100.
Atmospheric water vapor concentrations are NOT rapidly increasing as the CAGW hypothesis projected as can be seen by NOAA's relative humidity data, NOAA's specific humidity data and NASA's Water Vapor Project (NVAP):
http://nvap.stcnet.com
From the above empirical data there is absolutely no signal showing an exponential growth of water vapor concentrations.
RESPONSE: I'm not sure what your point is here. As the temperature goes up, the air can hold more water vapor. As a result, the relative humidity will remain about the same even as the total amount of water vapor in the air increases. Yes, the total amount of water vapor has been increasing.
2) 30-yr PDO cycles and Global warming correlation
There is some sinusoidal variation of water vapor concentrations, but this is better correlated to 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles than to the steady rise in CO2 levels. During 30-yr PDO warm cycles, global temps rise and water vapor concentrations rise due to increased ocean evaporation and during 30-yr PDO cool cycles, water vapor concentrations tend to fall due to slightly reduced ocean evaporation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
You will also notice from the above PDO cycle graph that there is 100.00% correlation between the 30-yr PDO cycles and global temp trends, i.e when the PDO is in a 30-yr warm cycle, global temps rise, and during 30-yr PDO cool cycles, global temp trends fall.
BTW, a 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005 and look what's happened to global temp trends (the last purple segment of the above graph) i.e. falling global temp trends as has happened during every 30-yr PDO cool cycle since 1850.... CAGW is screwed.
During a typical 30-yr PDO cool cycle, global temps fall at around -0.05C/decade, which means that by 2035, RSS global temp anomaly will be around 0.00C, and CAGW projections for 2035 will be around +1.2C...
RESPONSE: This is a well-debunked claim. There is a nice correlation between the PDO and the climate, but not 100% and only before modern times. In fact, this correlation is good proof that the current warming is not due to the PDO because that correlation has been busted in recent decades. You stated it yourself, the PDO went negative in 2005 and look what has happened to global temps. The SST has continued to rise. The 1980s were the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 1990s was hotter than that average, making the 1990s the hottest decade every recorded. Every year of the 2000s was hotter than that average, making the 2000s the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 2010s has been hotter than than that average, making the 2010s the hottest decade every recorded. 2014 is already the hottest year ever measured and it isn't even over yet. For more, read this article here. So, the PDO turned negative, but the planet has continued to get increasingly warmer. Your premise is shown to be false. The fatal flaw in your logic here is supposing AGW means there are no more natural cycles, therefore, the presence of natural cycles proves AGW is not real. The existence of manmade changes to the climate in now way means natural cycles have stopped. The presence of natural cycles in no way demonstrates manmade climate change is not real.
From 2035~2100, in order for the CAGW hypothesis to be confirmed, CO2 forcing would have to generate 0.72C/decade of warming for the remaining 65 straight years to 2100, which is impossible.
Just from today, this is what global trends would have to be starting from TOMORROW to meet CAGW's upper-end "best guess" estimate of 4.5C of CO2 induced warming by 2100:
That is impossible as it already requires a trend of 0.50C/decade starting from tomorrow to reach 4.5C by 2100. The temperature trend from July 1996~ October 2014 has been -0.002C/decade for RSS.
3) CAGW model projections vs. reality
There hasn't been a global warming trend for 18 years and 4 months (RSS data). Accordingly, 73 out of 73 CAGW CMIP5 model projections are now ALL above CAGW projections, which is a 100.00% failure rate:
As explained earlier, it only gets worse from here because of the PDO cool cycle we're in now.
This complete model failure is already sufficient to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis as NO model projected flat global temp trends exceeding 15 years. It has already been 18 years and 3 months... Reality already is outside the 95% confidence intervals of the CAGW model projections, which is sufficient for the CAGW hypothesis to be disconfirmed.
RESPONSE: I was expecting you to pull out something from Roy Spencer and you did not fail. This graph above has been shown to be fraudulent and purposefully doctored to provide false results. In fact, your entire argument about models is fatally flawed and very typical. Read my comments here.
4) Polar Ice Extents
The CAGW hypothesis projected that rising CO2 levels would cause BOTH polar ice extents to shrink. This has NOT happened. The Arctic Ice Extent did start to shrink since 1994 when the 30-yr AMO warm cycle started, but since the AMO peaked in 2007, the Arctic Ice Extent has slowly stared to recover. The 2012 Arctic Ice Extent record was an outlier caused by one of the longest and strongest Arctic cyclones in 50 years that occurred in August 2012. Prior to the August 2012 cyclone, Arctic Ice Extents were 2 million KM^2 larger than 2007 levels. Moreover, 2013 was the largest year-on-year Arctic Ice Extent recovery ever recorded, which shows that 2012 was an outlier year:
Antarctic Ice Extents have actually GROWN over the past 35 years, even though all CAGW models predicted it should have been shrinking... As a matter of fact, earlier this year, the Antarctic shattered the 35-yr Antarctic Ice Extent record:
This is just another example of the CAGW models being useless and unskillful, which means the CAGW hypothesis is useless and unskillful and doesn't reflect reality.
RESPONSE: Claims about the ice extent are false for both poles. The Arctic sea ice extent is most definitely not recovering. The sea ice extent increased in 2013, but that was relative to an incredibly bad year of ice extent in 2012. The level in 2014 was lower. The trend in the ice extent is clear. As for the ice extent in Antarctica, the continent is losing massive amounts of ice every year. This melted fresh water is diluting the sea water around the continent, lowering the freezing point. The projections of ice melting at both poles is actually turning out to be lower than the reality. You also forgot to mention Greenland. This claim has been made many times and is still false, no matter how many times someone makes it.
5) Sea Level Rise
The CAGW hypothesis projected a rapid rise in sea levels, but this is not happening. According to the peer-reviewed paper Jevrejeva et al 2014,
The rate of sea level rise in the early 20th century was only 2.03 mm/yr from 1904–1953 and actually fell to 1.45 mm/yr from 1954 to 2003..
So, from 1904 to 1953 , CO2 levels increased by about 15 ppm, and sea levels rose by 2.03 mm/yr, while from 1953 to 2003 , CO2levels increased by around 75 ppm, and sea level rose by 1.45 mm/yr. There is no correlation to sea level rise to CO2 level rise....
Accordingly, we can conclude that sea level rise has actually decelerated by 40% during the same span of years that CO2 levels were increasing by 500% (15 ppm to 75 ppm), an inverse correlation.
This establishes a strong lack of correlation between CO2 forcing and sea level rise acceleration.
This is further enforced by the new paper Jevrejeva et al 2014, which shows a mere 7 INCHES of SLR over the past 200 years...
As an excuse to explain away the total lack of a statistically significant global warming trend for the past 15~18 years (depending on temp database used), CAGW advocates suggest that the "missing heat" was buried in the oceans. However, during the past 10 years, sea level rise has actually FALLEN 30% (Cazenave et al 2014), which should NOT be possible given the thermal expansion which should have occurred if all this "missing heat" was buried in the oceans. Again, CAGW is busted.
RESPONSE: Man, you really do VERY poor homework. NOAA is pretty clear about sea level rise.
5) Severe Weather incidence projections vs. reality
The CAGW hypothesis postulated that global severe weather should be increasing in both frequency and severity as CO2 levels rise, however, the empirical evidence does not support this.
Even IPCC's 2013 AR5 report admits that their previous projections of increased severe weather incidence have been incorrect as shown in the following direct quotes from AR5:
“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
Even the IPCC admits there hasn't been any increasing trends in severe weather, and yet CAGW advocates still insist there are. This is a falsehood.
RESPONSE: Once again, already debunked. Or, here. That's for starters. Do some homework.
6) The 1980~1998 global warming trend is NOT unprecedented.
The CAGW hypothesis claims the short 18-yr global warming trend from 1980~1998 was unprecedented and was primarily due to CO2 forcing. This is false.
The HADCRUT4 1980~1998 warming trend was 0.14C/decade, which is even less than the 1910~1928 warming trend which was 0.17C/decade. The 1910~1928 global warming trend could not have been caused by CO2 forcing because CO2 levels hardly increased at all in the early 20th century. Even the IPCC admits that CO2 levels were only sufficient to cause any significant warming from 1950...
On a longer scale, 1980~2014, the global warming trend is 0.17C/decade compared to 1910~1944 was 0.14C/decade, which is virtually identical. Moreover, there hasn't been a RSS global warming trend since July 1996 and no HADCRUT4 global warming trend since the January 2001 (-0.001C/decade).
I'll grant you that the difference between these two 34-yr trends may be attributable to CO2 forcing, but it's only a difference of 0.03C/decade and no where NEAR the approximate 0.30C/decade trend of CO2 forcing that is required to confirm the CAGW hypothesis.
The CAGW hypothesis proposes that CO2 levels were only high enough to cause warming from 1950. If so, then why were global temps flat from 1950~1980 (-0.003C/decade). Why indeed.
So, I've shown that the CAGW hypothesis was wrong in its projections of: global warming trends, polar ice extents, severe weather incidence/severity and sea level rise.
There is virtually NO direct correlation nor a strong signal showing catastrophic global warming is possible per doubling of CO2. The empirical evidence and physics show that CO2's forcing effect is somewhere between 0.03C~0.12C/decade, with the most likely value around 0.06C/decade, which is NOTHING to worry about. This tiny amount of CO2 forcing is consistent with Lindzen Choi et al, Lewis and Curry et al, Harde et al, Otto et al, among many other peer-reviewed papers.
RESPONSE: Sorry, this amount of heating is such a short period of time is unprecedented, as well as the CO2 levels. They have not been witnessed within at least the last 800,000 years. Using Lindzen as a reference is a mistake. Everything he has ever claimed as been debunked.
You will of course call all of this data "cherry picking" as you've already indicated in previous posts, but we both know you owe me $30,000 and that CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis.
CONCLUSION: In summary, you failed to provide even one single bit of valid scientific evidence to prove AGW. Bad show. Sorry, you did nothing to prove global warming is not real.
I accept your challenge.
Under the rules of the Scientific Method, if the empirical evidence doesn't match hypothetical projections, the hypothesis can be deemed disconfirmed.
RESPONSE: This is a fatal misunderstanding of the scientific method. Bad start. Review this submission here for one example of someone that has already made this claim. Essentially, climate change is not a single theory. It is a umbrella term that covers at least hundreds, maybe thousands, of different theories coming together. Each of these theories is independently tested and verified. If you wish to prove AGW is not valid this way, you would have to independently invalidate each of those theories.
1) CAGW's global temp projections/Water Vapor
CAGW "best guess" Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is 3.0C~4.5C by 2100. This projection was calculated by CO2's forcing effect 5.35 x ln(560ppm/280ppm)= 3.7 watts, which, using the Stefan-Boltzman constant, will generate NET global warming of 1.2C by 2100.
The CAGW hypothesis then projects that 1.2C of GROSS CO2 induced warming will generate a "runaway feedback loop" involving ever increasing atmospheric water vapor concentrations, which will multiply this GROSS 1.2C of GROSS potential CO2 warming by a factor of 3 to 4 TIMES, which yields CAGW's NET best guess estimate of 3.0C~4.5C by 2100.
Atmospheric water vapor concentrations are NOT rapidly increasing as the CAGW hypothesis projected as can be seen by NOAA's relative humidity data, NOAA's specific humidity data and NASA's Water Vapor Project (NVAP):
From the above empirical data there is absolutely no signal showing an exponential growth of water vapor concentrations.
RESPONSE: I'm not sure what your point is here. As the temperature goes up, the air can hold more water vapor. As a result, the relative humidity will remain about the same even as the total amount of water vapor in the air increases. Yes, the total amount of water vapor has been increasing.
2) 30-yr PDO cycles and Global warming correlation
There is some sinusoidal variation of water vapor concentrations, but this is better correlated to 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles than to the steady rise in CO2 levels. During 30-yr PDO warm cycles, global temps rise and water vapor concentrations rise due to increased ocean evaporation and during 30-yr PDO cool cycles, water vapor concentrations tend to fall due to slightly reduced ocean evaporation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
You will also notice from the above PDO cycle graph that there is 100.00% correlation between the 30-yr PDO cycles and global temp trends, i.e when the PDO is in a 30-yr warm cycle, global temps rise, and during 30-yr PDO cool cycles, global temp trends fall.
BTW, a 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005 and look what's happened to global temp trends (the last purple segment of the above graph) i.e. falling global temp trends as has happened during every 30-yr PDO cool cycle since 1850.... CAGW is screwed.
During a typical 30-yr PDO cool cycle, global temps fall at around -0.05C/decade, which means that by 2035, RSS global temp anomaly will be around 0.00C, and CAGW projections for 2035 will be around +1.2C...
RESPONSE: This is a well-debunked claim. There is a nice correlation between the PDO and the climate, but not 100% and only before modern times. In fact, this correlation is good proof that the current warming is not due to the PDO because that correlation has been busted in recent decades. You stated it yourself, the PDO went negative in 2005 and look what has happened to global temps. The SST has continued to rise. The 1980s were the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 1990s was hotter than that average, making the 1990s the hottest decade every recorded. Every year of the 2000s was hotter than that average, making the 2000s the hottest decade ever recorded. Every year of the 2010s has been hotter than than that average, making the 2010s the hottest decade every recorded. 2014 is already the hottest year ever measured and it isn't even over yet. For more, read this article here. So, the PDO turned negative, but the planet has continued to get increasingly warmer. Your premise is shown to be false. The fatal flaw in your logic here is supposing AGW means there are no more natural cycles, therefore, the presence of natural cycles proves AGW is not real. The existence of manmade changes to the climate in now way means natural cycles have stopped. The presence of natural cycles in no way demonstrates manmade climate change is not real.
From 2035~2100, in order for the CAGW hypothesis to be confirmed, CO2 forcing would have to generate 0.72C/decade of warming for the remaining 65 straight years to 2100, which is impossible.
Just from today, this is what global trends would have to be starting from TOMORROW to meet CAGW's upper-end "best guess" estimate of 4.5C of CO2 induced warming by 2100:
3) CAGW model projections vs. reality
There hasn't been a global warming trend for 18 years and 4 months (RSS data). Accordingly, 73 out of 73 CAGW CMIP5 model projections are now ALL above CAGW projections, which is a 100.00% failure rate:
This complete model failure is already sufficient to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis as NO model projected flat global temp trends exceeding 15 years. It has already been 18 years and 3 months... Reality already is outside the 95% confidence intervals of the CAGW model projections, which is sufficient for the CAGW hypothesis to be disconfirmed.
RESPONSE: I was expecting you to pull out something from Roy Spencer and you did not fail. This graph above has been shown to be fraudulent and purposefully doctored to provide false results. In fact, your entire argument about models is fatally flawed and very typical. Read my comments here.
4) Polar Ice Extents
The CAGW hypothesis projected that rising CO2 levels would cause BOTH polar ice extents to shrink. This has NOT happened. The Arctic Ice Extent did start to shrink since 1994 when the 30-yr AMO warm cycle started, but since the AMO peaked in 2007, the Arctic Ice Extent has slowly stared to recover. The 2012 Arctic Ice Extent record was an outlier caused by one of the longest and strongest Arctic cyclones in 50 years that occurred in August 2012. Prior to the August 2012 cyclone, Arctic Ice Extents were 2 million KM^2 larger than 2007 levels. Moreover, 2013 was the largest year-on-year Arctic Ice Extent recovery ever recorded, which shows that 2012 was an outlier year:
RESPONSE: Claims about the ice extent are false for both poles. The Arctic sea ice extent is most definitely not recovering. The sea ice extent increased in 2013, but that was relative to an incredibly bad year of ice extent in 2012. The level in 2014 was lower. The trend in the ice extent is clear. As for the ice extent in Antarctica, the continent is losing massive amounts of ice every year. This melted fresh water is diluting the sea water around the continent, lowering the freezing point. The projections of ice melting at both poles is actually turning out to be lower than the reality. You also forgot to mention Greenland. This claim has been made many times and is still false, no matter how many times someone makes it.
5) Sea Level Rise
The CAGW hypothesis projected a rapid rise in sea levels, but this is not happening. According to the peer-reviewed paper Jevrejeva et al 2014,
The rate of sea level rise in the early 20th century was only 2.03 mm/yr from 1904–1953 and actually fell to 1.45 mm/yr from 1954 to 2003..
So, from 1904 to 1953 , CO2 levels increased by about 15 ppm, and sea levels rose by 2.03 mm/yr, while from 1953 to 2003 , CO2levels increased by around 75 ppm, and sea level rose by 1.45 mm/yr. There is no correlation to sea level rise to CO2 level rise....
Accordingly, we can conclude that sea level rise has actually decelerated by 40% during the same span of years that CO2 levels were increasing by 500% (15 ppm to 75 ppm), an inverse correlation.
This establishes a strong lack of correlation between CO2 forcing and sea level rise acceleration.
This is further enforced by the new paper Jevrejeva et al 2014, which shows a mere 7 INCHES of SLR over the past 200 years...
As an excuse to explain away the total lack of a statistically significant global warming trend for the past 15~18 years (depending on temp database used), CAGW advocates suggest that the "missing heat" was buried in the oceans. However, during the past 10 years, sea level rise has actually FALLEN 30% (Cazenave et al 2014), which should NOT be possible given the thermal expansion which should have occurred if all this "missing heat" was buried in the oceans. Again, CAGW is busted.
RESPONSE: Man, you really do VERY poor homework. NOAA is pretty clear about sea level rise.
5) Severe Weather incidence projections vs. reality
The CAGW hypothesis postulated that global severe weather should be increasing in both frequency and severity as CO2 levels rise, however, the empirical evidence does not support this.
Even IPCC's 2013 AR5 report admits that their previous projections of increased severe weather incidence have been incorrect as shown in the following direct quotes from AR5:
“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
Even the IPCC admits there hasn't been any increasing trends in severe weather, and yet CAGW advocates still insist there are. This is a falsehood.
RESPONSE: Once again, already debunked. Or, here. That's for starters. Do some homework.
6) The 1980~1998 global warming trend is NOT unprecedented.
The CAGW hypothesis claims the short 18-yr global warming trend from 1980~1998 was unprecedented and was primarily due to CO2 forcing. This is false.
The HADCRUT4 1980~1998 warming trend was 0.14C/decade, which is even less than the 1910~1928 warming trend which was 0.17C/decade. The 1910~1928 global warming trend could not have been caused by CO2 forcing because CO2 levels hardly increased at all in the early 20th century. Even the IPCC admits that CO2 levels were only sufficient to cause any significant warming from 1950...
On a longer scale, 1980~2014, the global warming trend is 0.17C/decade compared to 1910~1944 was 0.14C/decade, which is virtually identical. Moreover, there hasn't been a RSS global warming trend since July 1996 and no HADCRUT4 global warming trend since the January 2001 (-0.001C/decade).
I'll grant you that the difference between these two 34-yr trends may be attributable to CO2 forcing, but it's only a difference of 0.03C/decade and no where NEAR the approximate 0.30C/decade trend of CO2 forcing that is required to confirm the CAGW hypothesis.
The CAGW hypothesis proposes that CO2 levels were only high enough to cause warming from 1950. If so, then why were global temps flat from 1950~1980 (-0.003C/decade). Why indeed.
So, I've shown that the CAGW hypothesis was wrong in its projections of: global warming trends, polar ice extents, severe weather incidence/severity and sea level rise.
There is virtually NO direct correlation nor a strong signal showing catastrophic global warming is possible per doubling of CO2. The empirical evidence and physics show that CO2's forcing effect is somewhere between 0.03C~0.12C/decade, with the most likely value around 0.06C/decade, which is NOTHING to worry about. This tiny amount of CO2 forcing is consistent with Lindzen Choi et al, Lewis and Curry et al, Harde et al, Otto et al, among many other peer-reviewed papers.
RESPONSE: Sorry, this amount of heating is such a short period of time is unprecedented, as well as the CO2 levels. They have not been witnessed within at least the last 800,000 years. Using Lindzen as a reference is a mistake. Everything he has ever claimed as been debunked.
You will of course call all of this data "cherry picking" as you've already indicated in previous posts, but we both know you owe me $30,000 and that CAGW is a disconfirmed hypothesis.
CONCLUSION: In summary, you failed to provide even one single bit of valid scientific evidence to prove AGW. Bad show. Sorry, you did nothing to prove global warming is not real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)